Veronda L. Durden Commissioner October 1, 2015 Ms. MC Lambeth Budget Planning and Policy Office of the Governor P.O. Box 12428 Austin, TX 78711 Ms. Valerie Crawford Health and Human Services Team Legislative Budget Board P.O. Box 12666 Austin, TX 78711-2666 Dear Ms. Lambeth and Ms. Crawford: Please find attached the Business Enterprise of Texas, Customer Satisfaction Survey and Cost Analysis Report required by the 2014-15 General Appropriations Act, Senate Bill 1, 83 rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013 (Article II, Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Rider 26). Please contact Michael Hooks, director of Business Enterprises of Texas, at [email protected]or (512) 377-0560, if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Partnerships for Independence A+ PO Box 12866, Austin, Texas 78711 * Administrative Building * 4800 North Lamar, Austin, Texas 78756 Tel (512) 377-0601 * Fax (512) 377-0682
Transcript
Veronda L. DurdenCommissioner
October 1, 2015
Ms. MC LambethBudget Planning and PolicyOffice of the GovernorP.O. Box 12428Austin, TX 78711
Ms. Valerie CrawfordHealth and Human Services TeamLegislative Budget BoardP.O. Box 12666Austin, TX 78711-2666
Dear Ms. Lambeth and Ms. Crawford:
Please find attached the Business Enterprise of Texas, Customer Satisfaction Survey and Cost Analysis Report required by the 2014-15 General Appropriations Act, Senate Bill 1, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, 2013 (Article II, Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Rider 26).
Please contact Michael Hooks, director of Business Enterprises of Texas, at [email protected] or (512) 377-0560, if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Veronda L. Durden, M.S.Commissioner
Partnerships for Independence A+PO Box 12866, Austin, Texas 78711 * Administrative Building * 4800 North Lamar, Austin, Texas 78756
This report is submitted pursuant to Rider 26 as part of the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services’ (DARS) bill pattern performance reporting for the Business Enterprises of Texas (BET) program for the 2014–2015 biennium. Rider 26 reads as follows:
The Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services shall report by October 1 of each year of the biennium the following information to the Legislative Budget Board and to the Governor:
a. The results of the survey distributed to state host agencies on satisfaction of operational conditions such as pricing requirements, hours of operations, menu items, and product lines; and
b. The total cost incurred by each state host agency for the operation of Business Enterprises of Texas cafeterias, snack bars, and convenience stores. Reported costs should include the value of the space used, maintenance costs, utility costs, janitorial costs, and the method of finance for each cost. An outline of the methodology that was used to determine the final estimate should also be included in the report.
The report shall be prepared in a format specified by the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor.
The Survey of Customer Satisfaction was sent to all state agencies in which BET operates a food service and/or vending services facility. A total of 3,095 individuals from 46 agencies responded to the survey. This total represents the highest number of responses from the largest number of agencies received in the six years this survey has been offered and is double the number of responses to the 2013 survey.
Both the survey process and the construction method of the survey and report have been improved over the last three years. Listed below are a number of these improvements, including those newly instituted this year.
Before and during the survey, we placed improved format color posters in BET facilities to announce the survey dates and provide a “tear off” link sheet to the survey. These were placed at an earlier date this year.
We made an effort before and during the survey to encourage human resources managers with a history of low distribution of survey materials to promote the survey.
We identified and used additional contacts to better promote the availability of the survey to the widest audience possible.
P a g e | 2
We expanded the survey to allow respondents to identify their agency if they chose.
This year’s survey was advertised in the Health and Human Services Commission’s online newsletter, the Connection, to increase exposure during the last two weeks of the survey.
P a g e | 3
Actions Taken as a Result of 2014 Customer Satisfaction Survey
Significant actions were taken as a result of the responses to the 2014 Customer Service Survey.
We distributed survey results to licensed managers who operate facilities. We discussed concerns, and managers were asked to adjust practices where possible.
Managers were made aware of compliments and best practices identified by customers.
The results of the survey were used as an educational item at the BET manager’s annual training conference.
The program continued the successful healthy options program titled Better Eating Today, which offers snack and menu items with:
less than 35 percent fat; less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fats; less than 35 percent of total weight from sugar; and less than 350 mg of sodium.
Program staff and managers continue to communicate with the Statewide Wellness Committee in order to develop a model to raise awareness about healthy menu choices and their availability in both food service and vending facilities. In addition to point of sale signage displaying healthy options in food service and vending machines, health oriented food demonstrations have been conducted by guest suppliers and chefs to help educate managers about healthy products and recipes available locally.
P a g e | 4
Summary of the 2015 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
BET survey respondents informed us that they continue to have high levels of satisfaction with our reasonable prices and appropriate product portions. They also responded favorably to our facility hours and the speed with which they were able to dine and return to work. In fact, hours of operation and prices were both areas that received higher ratings this year. Additionally, respondents rated BET higher this year in the area of offering healthy menu items. However, this area still has room for improvement.
BET survey responses indicated that we lost ground in the areas of overall customer satisfaction and product value rating compared to last year. Additional training will be offered in these areas after specific results have been shared with managers. Although we were rated slightly higher this year in regards to resolving complaints, we still have work to accomplish in this area. Finally, respondents indicated that they would like to see a more diverse variety of product selection in our facilities. Comments, requests, and compliments provided on the surveys will be shared with the facility managers so that they can address areas of concern.
P a g e | 5
2015 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
A total of 3,095 individuals from 46 agencies responded to the 2015 Survey of Customer Satisfaction. The following are the responses to the topics addressed in the survey.
The prices offered in the foodservice and/or vending facility in this building are reasonable compared to foodservice and/or vending operations in the area.
A diverse selection of products is consistently available.
Series1
P a g e | 11
The products this foodservice and/or vending facility offers provide enough variety to provide adequate alternative selections such as healthy item choices.
Provides employees a clean safe environment in which to dine.
Series1
P a g e | 18
If you have any suggestions regarding how we can improve the services we provide, please enter them below and thanks for your participation.
Answer Options Response Count1558
answered question 1558skipped question 1537
P a g e | 19
Comment Categories
Survey respondents were asked for additional suggestions on how BET can improve services. A total of 1,558 individuals provided comments containing concerns, requests, and compliments.
Summary of Survey Respondent Comments by CategoryCategory, Number of Comments
Service, Manager, Staff, Cleanliness, Communication Skills
Manager, Staff 6.2 0 75.5 3.0
Hours of Operation, 37 2.4 2.7 5.4 35.1
P a g e | 20
Agencies Responding
Please tell us which state agency you work for.
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Board of Dental Examiners 0.5% 13Board of Nursing 0.1% 4Child Protective Services 0.4% 11Chiropractic Examiners 0.2% 5Commission on Environmental Quality 11.3% 309Commission on Fire Protection 0.0% 1Comptroller of Public Accounts 0.2% 6Department of Aging and Disability Services 4.1% 113Department of Agriculture 2.7% 74Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services 5.7% 157
Department of Family and Protective Services 1.2% 34
Department of Insurance 3.7% 102Department of Public Safety 0.7% 20Department of Rehabilitative Services 0.2% 5Department of State Health Services 7.2% 197Disability Determination Services 3.5% 97Division for Blind Services 0.0% 1Emergency Communications 0.3% 9Employee Retirement System 1.0% 28Board of Examiners of Psychologists 0.2% 5General Land Office 0.1% 3Health and Human Services Commission 8.2% 224Historical Commission 0.0% 0Housing and Community Affairs 0.1% 4Legislative Council 0.1% 3Legislative Budget Board 0.0% 0Library and Archives 0.8% 23Office of Attorney General 9.4% 256Office of Attorney General, Child Support 5.1% 139Physical/Occupational Therapy Board 0.1% 4Public Utility Commission 1.3% 35Railroad Commission 3.7% 100Secretary of State 1.6% 45State Board of Public Accountancy 0.3% 7State Office of Administrative Hearings 0.0% 0Sunset Advisory Commission 0.0% 0
P a g e | 21
Texas Education Agency 7.8% 212Texas Facilities Commission 0.8% 22Texas Lottery Commission 2.0% 56Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 1.2% 33Texas Workforce Commission 5.3% 145TxDOT, Riverside, Austin 8.0% 220TxDOT, Camp Hubbard, Austin 0.3% 7Veterans Commission 0.1% 2Veterans Land Board 0.0% 1Workers Compensation 0.1% 2Other agency not listed x 177
answered question 2734skipped question 361
How did you find out about this survey?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Email from your agency. 89.1% 2410Poster in foodservice facility. 10.9% 294Other (please specify) 258
answered question 2704skipped question 391
P a g e | 22
Cost Analysis Report
An inquiry was submitted to all state host agencies in which BET operated a cafeteria, snack bar, and/or convenience store in fiscal year (FY) 2015. Of the 16 host agencies surveyed, 14 responded. There was some inconsistency in methods utilized by those reporting. A listing of host agencies surveyed and a summary of all costs reported or known are listed below.
TxDOT Café 4615 NW 1,672 sq. ft. No No No response State General
P a g e | 23
FY15 Food Service
Location/Type
Address Annual Value of Space
Used 2015 *
Estimated Maintenance
Costs
Estimated Utility Costs
Estimated Janitorial
Costs
Method of Finance
Loop 410, San Antonio, TX
$26,016.32response
aftermultiple requests
responseafter
multiple requests
after multiple requests
Revenue and Fed. Funding
TxDOT Café
200 Riverside Dr.Austin, TX
4,354 sq. ft.$67,748.24
No response
aftermultiple requests
No response
after multiple requests
No responseafter multiple
requests
State General Revenue and Fed. Funding
San Antonio State Hospital Café
6711 S. New Braunfels Ave., TX
3,210 sq. ft.$49,947.60 $8,123.00 $6,163.71 $5,503.00 State General
Revenue
Department of Public Safety Café
5805 N. Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX
3,889 sq. ft.$60,512.84
Lease includes
maintenance
Lease includes utilities
NAState General Revenue and Fed. Funding
Disability Determination Services Café
6101 E. Oltorf St., Austin TX
3,850 sq. ft.$59,906.00
Included in lease cost $7,035.01 $4,135.98 SSA, 100%
federal funds
Attorney General Child Support Division Café
5500 E. Oltorf St.Austin, TX
2,800 sq. ft.$43,568.00
Services inclusive in
property lease$5,327.00 NA Title IV-D
funding
Totals NA $857,278.20 $66,648.01 $118,865.75 $35,799.38 NA
* Annual value of space used may include utility, maintenance, and janitorial costs.
* In order to establish consistency in reporting, the estimated value of space was based on average square footage lease costs of $15.56 per square foot for space leased by state agencies, as reported by the Texas Facilities Commission Master Facilities Plan Report 2014/2015.
P a g e | 24
Cost Analysis Survey—2015
State Property Locations SurveyedSent To Responded
San Antonio Supported Living Center and Hospital YesTexas Dept. of Transportation—San Antonio NoTexas Dept. of Transportation—Austin NoDisability Determination Services—Austin YesDepartment of Public Safety—Austin YesOffice of the Attorney General-Child Support—Austin YesElias Ramirez State Office Building—Houston YesDepartment of State Health Services—Austin YesWinters Building Café and Convenience Store—Austin YesCommission on Environmental Quality—Austin YesTravis Building—Austin YesHobby Building—Austin YesClements Building—Austin YesBrown-Heatly Building—Austin YesRudder Building—Austin YesStephen F. Austin Building—Austin Yes
